Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2016  with  funding  from 
Duke  University  Libraries 


https://archive.org/details/nicaraguancanal03ryan 


u 

is! 


i - 


t-t1 


■NICARAGUA  CANAL 

Wmm 

fflssgk 


HAY- 


PAUHCEF0TE  TREATY, 


SPEECHES  OF 


Hon.  WILLIAM  H.  RYAN, 


OF  NEW  YORK. 


v 


IN  THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES, 
MAY  15,  1300  and  JUNE  6,  1900. 


3 8 V 


C , / c/  Jj'CTtfS 

C,1  AiSC-endteJ, 


Washington,  D.  C. : 
1900. 


/? 

c.i 

Nicaraguan  Canal — Hay-Pauncefote  Treaty. 


SPEECH 

O*  " 

HON.  WILLIAM  H.  RYAN, 

OF  NEW  YORK, 

in  the  House  of  Representatives, 

Tuesday,  May  1,  1900. 


The  House  being  in  Committee  of  the  Whole  House  on  the  state  of  the 
Union,  and  having  under  consideration  the  bill  (II.  It  253S)  to  provide  for  the 
construction  of  y.  canal  connecting  the  waters  of  the  Atlantic  and  Pacific 
oceans— 

Mr.  RYAN  of  New  York  said: 

Mr.  Chairman:  When  the  debate  opened  on  this  bill  I had  about 
made  up  my  mind  to  sit  and  listen — to  be  a student,  as  it  were — 
while  ihe  members  who- have  traversed  the  various  routes,  literally 
back  and  forth,  proposed  for  an  isthmian  canal,  gave  to  the  House 
the  information  they  have  and  the  knowledge  they  have  acquired  on 
this  subject.  I was  willing  to  be  taught,  Mr.  Chairman;  but  when 
that  teaching  would  have  me  believe  that  this  Government  cannot 
build  the  canal  on  its  own  responsibility;  when  I am  asked  to  be 
convinced* that  we  must  first  secure  consent  from  a foreign  power, 
then  1 am  not  willing  to  accept  the  teachings  of  my  colleagues,  and 
I want  to  say  that  I believe  the  American  people  will  demand — if 
we  are  to  have  a canal  at  all — that  it  be  built,  owned,  and  controlled 
by  the  United  States  Government,  without  considering  the  whims 
and  desires  of  Great  Britain  or  any  other  country  in  its  construc- 
tion. 

T feel  that  we  are  united  on  the  proposition  that  the  canal  must 
be  built.  There  are  some  who  maintain  that  the  present  time  is  not 
opportune  and  that  we  should  wait  until  we  have  all  the  facts  from 
the  latest  commission.  Assuming  we  do  wait,  what  assurance  has 
the  House  that  we  would  not  be  asked  to  appoint  another  commis- 
sion to  secure  new  facts,  make  new  surveys,  refurbish  the  report  of 
its  predecessor  and  so  shape  matters  as  to  leave  an  avenue  for  the 
appointment  of  a successor?  Every  year’s  delay  puts  us  back  a step 
in  the  progress  of  time.  Every  moment's  delay  is  a loss  to 
American  commerce  and  to  American  shipping.  All  the  eminent 


commissioners  of  the  numerous  commissions  which  have  investi- 
gated the  .subject,  all  the  learned  and  experienced  engineers  who 
have  surveyed  the  ground,  unite  in  declaring  that  the  project  is  per- 
fectly feasible.  Naval  experts  say  that  it  will  increase  our  prepara- 
tions for  defense  one  hundredfold. 

Every  American  citizen  who  swrears  by  the  American  eagle  is 
convinced  that  the  construction  of  the  canal  would  be  one  of  the 
greatest  benefits  that  could  come  to  a progressive  country  like  ours, 
and  every  American  citizen  expects  this  canal  for  ourselves,  except 
wherein  we  can  grant  its  privileges  without  detriment  to  our  own 
interests.  What  further  need  has  Congress  for  direction  in  this 
matter?  The  details  of  construction  are  an  after  consideration, 
which,  while  holding  our  attention  and  consideration  in  the  forma- 
tion of  the  plans,  must  largely  be  mapped  out  as  time  and  circum- 
stances surrounding  will  dictate.  We  cannot  design  the  exact 
course  of  the  canal;  we  can  lay  its  course  in  a general  way.  We  can 
not  say  it  must  equally  divide  this  or  that  section  of  the  country. 
We  can  say  it  must  be  near  that  section.  We  can  say,  Mr.  Chair- 
man, that  we  are  going  to  build  this  canal,  just  as  our  forefathers 
said,  “This  country  is  and  of  right  should  be  free.”  We  can  say  we 
are  going  to  build  this  canal  and  control  it,  and  fortify  it,  and  de- 
fend it,  and  protect  our  commerce  by  it,  and  we  do  not  care  whether 
Great  Britain  or  any  other  foreign  country  likes  it  or  not.  We  are 
catering  to  no  one  but  ourselves. 

A gentleman  who  preceded  me  on  the  floor  quoted  a portion  of 
the  language  of  the  Hay-Pauncefote  treaty.  He  deprecated  and 
condemned  the  language,  and  I like  his  sentiment.  His  quotation 
is  as  follows: 

I<  is  agreed  that  the  canal  may  be  constructed  under  the  auspices  of  the 
Government  of  the  United  States. 

In  what  crucible  of  God  or  man  was  Great  Britain  made  the 
guardian  of  our  action?  By  what  right  does  that  country  say  “we 
may"  construct  this  canal?  Better  by  far.  one  hundred  times,  that 
no  canal  be  built  if  conditions  have  so  changed  that  we  must  ask 
the  consent  of  a foreign  power  before  we  can  proceed. 

Mr.  Chairman,  there  are  a number  of  important  considerations 
in  this  question.  One  is  the  Monroe  doctrine;  another  is  the  source 
to  which  the  benefits  of  this  canal  will  accrue.  As  no  other  govern- 
ment is  willing  to  spend  a dollar  in  the  construction  of  the  canal, 
and  as,  therefore,  the  money  to  build  it  must  come  from  the  labor 
of  this  country,  the  benelits  to  be  derived  from  the  canal  must  like- 
wise be  the  reward  of  this  labor. 

I do  not  wish  to  say  which  route  I believe  the  more  practical  or 
the  cheaper.  While  I have  studied  the  question.  I do  not  fedl  that 
my  knowledge  is  sufficient  to  say  that  we  should  vote  to  finish  the 


1 


5 


Panama  Canal  or  to  build  the  Nicaragua  Canal.  I do  wish  to  go  on 
record,  however,  to  the  effe»:*t  that  I believe  we  should  not  assume 
in  the  outset  the  liabilities,  the  obstructions,  and  the  losses  of  a 
private  enterprise.  Either  route,  I feel,  would  be  of  marvelous 
benefit  to  the  country;  and,  with  reports  from  men  of  science,  it  is 
not  necessary  that  I take  up  the  time  of  the  House  hashing  and 
rehashing  their  opinions  and  scientific  researches,  demonstrating 
the  absolute  necessity  of  this  canal  in  order  to  put  American  ship- 
ping on  the  same  or  nearly  equal  footing  with  the  boats  of  other 
countries.  I do  not  wish  to  say  that  the  commerce  of  this  country 
and  our  products  will  all  be  carried  in  American  bottoms,  but  it 
will  give  an  impetuous  character  to  our  shipping  that  will  make  us 
a hardy  and  willing  rival  to  any  country  on  God's  green  earth. 

Nicaragua  is  peculiarly  situated  for. this  improvement  in  ship- 
ping. Admitting  that  we  were  io  allow  foreign  boats  to  use  it  on 
the  same  equal  terms  as  our  own,  the  American  vessel  would  still 
have  a great  advantage  in  distance.  The  canal  would  save  that 
great  rail  haul  from  the  Pacific  to  the  Atlantic  seaboards.  Califor- 
nia would  be  a strong  competitor  with  Spain  for  the  premiership  of 
wine-producing  centers  of  the  world.  Our  internal  commerce 
would  be  magnified  and  expanded  to  an  extent  that  no  other  im- 
provement could  give  us.  We  would  have  an  advantage  in  China 
and  Japan  that  would  almost  repay  us  for  the  cost  of  building  the 
canal,  to  say  nothing  of  the  increase  of  commerce  with  the  other 
countries  of  the  Far  East.  The  water  shipments  of  the  Pacific  side 
of  South  America,  would  come  to  us  and  ours  would  go  to  them.  It 
would  bind  our  commerce  with  those  countries  in  an  inseparable 
tie. 

Let  me  quote  to  you  the  figures  presented  by  the  Bureau  of  Sta- 
tistics of  the  Treasury  Department  relative  to  our  trade  with  the 
countries  of  the  lower  Americas  and  the  countries  of  the  East.  I 
desire  to  show  that  American  bottoms  carry  but  a scant  portion  of 
this  trade.  I contend  that  the  canal  would  reverse  this  order  of 
things  and  undoubtedly  give  us  a majority. 

In  the  year  TSDD  we  imported  from  Argentina  §5,112,501.  We 
exported  to  that  country  89,503,510.  We  imported  from  Brazil 
857,875.747,  and  exported  to  Brazil  only  812,239,030.  We  imported 
from  Chile  §2,942,902,  while  we  exported  to  Chile  §2,107,124.  We 
imported  from  Colombia  §5,120,731,  while  we  exported  to  Colombia 
only  §3,042.094.  We  imported  from  Ecuador  §1,054.053,  and  ex- 
ported only  §S82,591.  We  imported  from  Peru  §1,490,978,  and  ex- 
ported to  Peru  §1,325,050.  We  imported  from  Uruguay  §1,281,109, 
and  exported  to  Uruguay  §1,242,822.  We  imported  from  Venezuela 
§0,507,847;  we  exported  to  Venezuela  §2,851,634.  We  imported 
from  South  America  altogether  §80,587,893, 


/ 


! 


6 


We  imported  from  Costa  Rica  $3,581,899,  and  exported  to  Costa 
Rica  $1,240,950.  We  imported  from  Guatemala  $2,111,264;  we  ex- 
ported to  Guatemala  $1,102,903.  We  imported  from  Honduras 
$911,849;  we  exported  to  Honduras  $832,016.  We  imported  from 
Nicaragua  $1,514,630;  wTe  exported  to  Nicaragua  $1,186,511.  We 
imported  from  Salvador  $1,OS5,703;  we  exported  to  Salvador 
$625,414. 

In  Asia  it  was  no  different.  We  imported  from  Aden  $1,924,941, 
and  exported  to  Aden  $993,741.  We  imported  from  China  $18,619,- 
268,  and  exported  to  China  $14,493,440.  We  imported  from  the  Brit- 
ish East  Indies  $32,560,312,  and  exported  to  the  British  East  Indies 
$4,341,936.  We  imported  from  the  Dutch  East  Indies  $21,313,945; 
we  exported  to  the  Dutch  East  Indies  $1,54S,973.  We  imported 
from  Japan  $26,716,814,  and  exported  to  Japan  $17, 264, OSS.  We  im- 
ported from  the  total  of  Asia  $107,091,214,  and  only  exported  to 
Asia  $48,360,161. 

With  the  building  of  this  canal  the  dangerous  trips  around  the 
Horn  will  cease.  It  will  mean  the  obliterating  of  10,000  miles  of 
ocean  transportation,  and  each  man  may  figure  for  himself  the  sav- 
ing in  the  cost  of  transportation. 

As  to  the  amendment  proposed  that  we  insert  the  words  '‘for- 
tify and  defend,”  I wish  to  say  that  I am  heartily  in  accord  with  this 
amendment.  The  gentleman  from  Iowa  states  that  there  is  embod- 
ied in  the  word  “protect”  all  authority  for  defense.  I know  that  the 
American  people  will  always  defend  and  protect  their  own,  but  I 
see  no  reason  why  the  House  should  not  so  state  in  this  bill  and  thus 
cut  off  any  opportunity  for  international  disputes. 

I am  opposed  to  giving  to  Great  Britain  the  slightest  ground  on 
which  to  cry  “international  agreement.”  or  “international  courtesy.” 
I particularize  Great  Britain  in  this  instance,  because  that  country 
has  for  years  been  trying  to  force  herself  into  a partnership  in  the 
rewards  of  this  canal,  yet,  has  she  ever  made  a move  to  indicate  that 
she  was  willing  to  bear  the  brunt  of  the  expense  of  its  construction? 
Has  Great  Britain  ever  offered  to  contribute  one  cent  toward  its 
construction?  I think  not.  Why,  then,  should  we  consider  her  in- 
terest in  this  project? 

Mr.  Chairman,  we  must  be  equal  gainers  by  this  canal  in  times 
of  war  as  in  times  of  peace.  Our  naval  experts  tell  us  that  we 
need  have  no  fear  of  invasion  in  case  we  have  the  canal.  All  mem- 
bers of  the  House  are  indeed  familiar  with  the  trip  of  that  gallant 
battle  ship,  the  Oregon.  We  are  likewise  ready  in  memory  regard- 
ing the  anxiety  that  overspread  the  country  when  it  was  known  that 
Admiral  Cervera's  fleet  was  headed  from  Spain  toward  our  coast. 
Dewey  was  at  Manila;  Schley  and  Sampson  were  off  the  southern 
reefs  dodging  about.  The  Oregon  was  on  her  long  trip  around  the 


7 


Ilorn.  No  one  knew  where  Cervera  was.  We  did  not  know  where 
he  was  headed.  The  good  people  of  Boston  town  sought  the  storm 
cellars  o’  nights  fearing  that  dynamite  bombs  was  to  be  their  greet- 
ing in  the  morning.  , 

Reports  came  from  our  Pacific  coasts  declaring  that  the  Span- 
ish fleet  had  been  seen  off  the  entrance  to  the  Golden  Gate.  Anoth- 
er report  would  startle  another  section  of  the  country,  and  well  it 
might.  The  Pacific  coast  was  bare.  Our  fleets  were  in  Southern  wa- 
ters. Neither  Sampson  nor  Schley  nor  Watson  could  have  reached 
there  in  less  than  a month's  time.  The  people  had  cause  to  be 
startled.  Would  they  liave  shown  this  anxiety  had  the  canal  been 
constructed?  Mr.  Chairman,  we  could  have  pmt  a fleet  on  the  Pa- 
cific coast  in  a few  days  and  could  have  brought  it  back  in  an  equal 
length  of  time.  With  a fortified  canal  we  would  be  able  to  defend 
our  coast  against  the  combined  forces  of  the  other  continent. 

But  we  are  told,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  we  must  not  fortify  the 
canal.  We  are  confronted  with  the  statement  that  the  Clayton- 
Bulwer  treaty  is  still  in  force.  This  treaty  is  condemned  by  the  peo- 
ple from  the  Lake  of  the  Woods  to  the  Tropics,  from  Maine  to  Cal- 
ifornia. and  from  the  Klondike  to  the  colony  of  Porto  Rico.  There 
has  been  a shrewd  though  somewhat  transparent  effort  on  the  part 
of  the  friends  of  the  Hay-Pauncefote  treaty,  which  has  been  pre- 
pared to  supersede  this  defunct  and  entombed  arrangement  of  Clay- 
ton and  Bulwer,  to  have  it  appear  that  the  opponents  of  the  treaty 
are  also  the  opponents  of  the  canal. 

We  must  repudiate  the  new  treaty  just  as  the  country  has  re- 
pudiated the  old;  and  I trust  that  the  members  in  the  upper  branch 
of  Congress  will  spurn  that  agreement  entered  into  by  our  Secretary 
of  State  and  Great  Britain’s  diplomatic  representative.  We  are  not 
to  build  an  international  canal,  and  we  want  no  international  alli- 
ances. I admit  that  men  will  claim  and  have  claimed  and  are  claim- 
ing that  we  should  construct  an  international  canal;  but  I want  to 
ask  them,  as  they  have  undoubtedly  asked  themselves,  by  what 
authority  and  under  what  clause  of  the  Constitution  do  they  intend 
to  draw  from  ihe  United  States  Treasury  the  money  to  construct  an 
international  canal?  Would  they  have  this  Government  bear  the 
full  burden  of  expense  for  the  construction  of  a waterway  for  the 
benefit  equal  with  ours,  of  all  foreign  powers?  Would  they  have 
us  build  a canal  neutral  in  war  and  in  peace  by  a specific  agreement 
which  we  could  not  break,  even  were  we  so  inclined,  without 
arraying  all  Europe  against  us?  No,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  treaty 
should  be  defeated,  absolutely  and  without  reservation. 

Mr.  Chairman,  let  us  refer  to  the  eighth  section  of  Article  I of 
the  Constitution,  which  says: 

The  Congress  shall  have  the  power  to  lay  and  collect  taxes  to  provide 
for  the  common  defense  and  general  welfare  of  the  United  States. 


It  is  contended  on  the  floor  of  this  House  and  elsewhere — and 
contended  with  absolute  common  sense  and  good  judgment.  I be- 
lieve— that  in  t lie  event  of  war,  the  canal,  bound  hand  and  foot 
by  the  Hay-Pa uncefote  treaty,  would  be  our  undoing.  To  build  it 
under  this  agreement  would  not  be  providing  for  our  defense,  but 
would  be  our  weakness.  It  would  not  be  expending  the  people's 
money  for  our  general  welfare,  but  rather  in  the  interest  of  for- 
eign powers.  England,  Germany,  Russia,  France,  all  would  be  en- 
titled to  the  same  privileges  of  the  canal  as  we  would  enjoy,  and  it 
would  give  to  them  a vast  advantage.  Great  Britain  could  use  it 
to  strike  in  the  East  and  to  attack  our  Pacific  coast. 

She  would  save  the  distance  around  the  Horn,  just  as  we  would.  . 
That  country  has  now  a powerful  military  station  on  the  island  of 
Santa  Lucia,  off  the  entrance  to  the  canal.  She  has  other  strategic 
points  from  which  to  operate  against  us.  Our  plain  duty,  Mr. 
Chairman,  in  view  of  these  facts,  is  to  cut  off  all  idea  of  an  interna- 
tional canal.  Why  this  secret  parleying  and  snobbery  with  Great 
Britain  anyway?  Can  not  we  be  fair  to  that  country  without  put- 
ting on  the  bells  and  bowing  before  the  throne?  Will  American 
citizenship  allow  any  foreign  power  to  tell  us  that  we  may  build 
this  canal,  providing  we  grant  it  or  them  the  privileges  of  the  same 
in  time  of  war?  I charge  the  Administration  with  nothing  but  blun- 
ders in  this  regard. 

Mr.  Chairman,  the  United  States  has  suffered  enough  through 
treaty  enactions.  Darkest  among  these  is  the  infamous  Clayton- 
Bulwer  agreement,  which  produced  nothing  but  discord  and  inhar- 
monious relations,  and  was  a source  of  annoyance  until  Great  Brit- 
ain by  her  perfidy  abrogated  its  bindings.  Each  nation  put  a differ- 
ent construction  on  that  agreement.  England  would  have  it  bind 
this  country  and  herself  go  unleashed.  International  law  is  at  its 
best  but  a flimsy  guidance,  and  I appeal  to  the  members  of  the 
House  to  weigh  well  these  facts  in  acting  upon  this  measure.  We 
can  not  reiterate  too  strongly  nor  too  often  our  determination  to 
construct  this  a canal  for  the  people  of  the  United  States,  for  their 
benefit,  for  their  protection,  and  for  their  advancement,  both  com- 
mercially and  from  the  standpoint  of  war. 

I ask  the  attention  of  the  House  while  I quote  here  a few  ex- 
tracts from  letters  of  James  G.  Blaine  and  other  able  statesmen 
of  his  time.  First  I will  read  the  preamble  and  first  article  of  the 
treaty,  which  run  as  follows: 

Her  Britannic  Majesty  and  the  United  States  of  America,  being  desirous 
of  consolidating  the  relations  of  amity  which  so  happily  subsist  between 
them,  by  setting  forth  and  fixing  in  a convention  their  views  and  intentions 
with  reference  to  any  means  of  communication  by  ship  canal,  which  may  be 
constructed  between  the  Atlantic  and  Pacific  oceans  by  the  vliy  of  the  river 
St.  Juau  de  Nicaragua,  and  either  or  both  of  the  lakes  of  Nicaragua  or  Ma- 
nagua, to  any  port  or  place  on  the  Pacific  Ocean.  * * * 


9 


'Art.  I.  The  Governments  of  Great  Britain  and  the  United  States  here- 
by, declare  that  neither  the  one  nor  the  other  will  ever  obtain  or  maintain  for 
Itself  any  exclusive  control  over  the  said  ship  canal:  agreeing  that  neither 
will  ever  erect  or  maintain  any  fortifications  commanding  the  same,  or  in 
the  vicinity  thereof,  or  occupy,  or  fortify,  or  colonize,  or  assume  or  exercise 
any  dominion  over  Nicaragua.  Costa  Rica,  the  Mosquito  coast,  or  any  part  of 
Central  America:  nor  will  either  make  use  of  any  protection  which  either 
affords,  or  may  afford,  or  any  alliance  which  either  has.  or  may  have,  to  or 
with  any  state  or  people,  for  the  purpose  of  erecting  or  maintaining  any  such 
fortifications,  or  of  occupying,  fortifying,  or  colonizing  Nicaragua,  Costa 
Rica,  the  Mosquito  coast,  or  any  part  of  Central  America,  or  of  assuming  or 
exercising  dominion  over  the  same.  Nor  will  Great  Britain  or  the  United 
States  take  advantage  of  any  intimacy,  or  use  any  alliance,  connection,  or  in- 
fluence that  either  may  possess  with  any  state  or  government  through 
whose  territory  the  said  canal  may  pass,  for  the  purpose  of  acquiring  or 
holding,  directly  or  indirectly,  for  the  subjects  or  citizens  of  the  one,  any 
rights  or  advantages  in  reaard  to  commerce  or  navigation  through  the  said 
canal  which  shall  not  be  offered,  on  the  same  terms,  to  the  subjects  or  citi- 
zens of  tbe  other. 

Now,  Mr.  Chairman,  it  is  my  intention  to  show  how  ill  advised 
and  how  much  regretted  was  the  signing  of  that  treaty.  The  words 
of  General  Cass,  then  Secretary  of  State,  stand  out  emblazoned  be- 
fore us  as  a guide  that  the  country  may  not  fall  into  the  same  trap. 
General  Cass.says,  in  a letter  to  Her  Majesty's  representative: 

The  Clayton-Bulwer  treaty,  concluded  in  the  hope  that  it  would  put  an 
end  to  the  differences  which  had  arisen  between  the  United  States  and  Great 
Britain  concerning  Central  American  affairs,  had  been  rendered  inoperative 
in  some  of  its  most  essential  provisions  by  the  different  constructions  which 
had  been  reciprocally  given  to  It  by  the  parties.  And  little  is  hazarded  in 
paying  that,  had  the  interpretation  since  put  upon  the  treaty  by  the  British 
Government,  and  yet  maintained,  been  anticipated,  it  would  not  have  been 
negotiated  uuder  the  instructions  of  any  Executive  of  the  United  States,  nor 
ratified  by  the  branch  of  the  Government  intrusted  with  the  power  of  ratifi- 
cation. 

In  a letter  James  G.  Blaine  quotes  President  Buchanan  as  fol- 
lows: 1 

If  the  Senate  had  imagined  that  it  could  obtain  the  interpretation  placed 
upon  it  by  Great  Britain,  it  would  not  have  passed.  If  he  had  been  in  the 
Senate  at  tbe  time,  that  treaty  never  would  have  been  sanctioned. 

With  reference  to  arbitration  (which  Lord  Napier  had  only  thrown  in  as 
a suggestion  of  his  own),  he  could  not  give  any  opinion  at  present.  The 
President  also  inveighed  against  the  excess  of  treaties,  affirming  that  they 
were  more  frequently  the  cause  of  quarrel  than  of  harmony,  and  that  if  it 
were  not  for  the  iDteroceauic  communications  he  did  not  see  there  was  any 
necessity  for  a treaty  respecting  Central  America  at  all. 

In  communication  with  Lord  Napier,  General  Cass,  on  October 
20,  1857.  inserted  this  clause  in  a letter: 

I have  thus  endeavored  to  meet  the  frank  suggestions  of  your  lordship  by 
restating  with  corresponding  frankness  the  general  policy  of  the  United 
States  with  respect  to  the  Governments  and  the  interoceanic  transits  of  Cen- 
tral America.  But  since  your  lordship  lias  referred  to  the  Clayton-Bulwer 
treaty  of  1S50  as  contemplating  a harmonious  course  of  action  and  counsel 
between  the  contracting  parties  in  the  settlement  of  Central  American  in- 
terests. you  will  pardon  me  for  reminding  your  lordship  that  the  differences 
which  this  treaty  was  intended  to  adjust  between  the  United  States  and 
Great  Britain  still  remain  unsettled,  while  the  treaty  itself  has  become  the 
subject  of  new  and  embarrassing  complications, 


10 


In  view  of  these  facts,  Mr.  Chairman,  I domot  believe  that  the 
division  of  Congress  which  lias  the  power  and  duty  of  ratification, 
will  vote  to  bring  into  existence,  in  connection  with  the  construction 
of  the  canal,  another  treaty  which  will  not  alone  confirm  the  '•gold- 
brick”  provisions  of  the  Clayton-Bulwer  arrangement,  but  will 
bring  to  us  a multiplicity  of  evils  in  addition. 

Because  this  is  so,  Mr.  Chairman,  is  no  argument  that  we 
should  not  construct  the  canal.  It  simply  demonstrates  that  we 
must  avoid  the  rapids  of  entangling  alliances  and  reassert  our  inde- 
pendence and  our  ability  to  push  this  work  on  our  own  responsibil- 
ity, cony  what  will. 

Look  at  the  chart  I here  present  and  view  another  reason  why 
we  should  build  the  canal  for  the  United  States  alone.  Compare  the 
distance  between  New  York  and  Liverpool  by  the  present  route  and 
the  distance  when  the  canal  is  completed: 


llul 

Nicara- 

gua.. 

Distance 

Saved. 

Advan- 
tage to 
New  York. 

Mi:  ■ 

Miles 
6.700 
.<000 
0 100 

Miles. 

0 000 

Mila 

Now  York  to  San  Francisco 

1 1.600 

9.200 
4 1K>» 

3,100 

New  fork  to  Hawaii 

1 1.200 

(>]20O 

8.0  0 
r>  400 

2,900 

IT.OliO 

0 100 

8>00 

3.000 

12.700 
10.000 
7 400 

GOO 

New  York  to  Melltourno 

J'l.nOO 

o.HH) 
2.2'  HJ 

2.700 

yjou 

4 000 

5.100 

2 .S00 

4 709 

2,021 

| 

We  can  be  dignified,  yet  reasonable  and  even  magnanimous,  af- 
ter the  canal  is  constructed,  and  permit  foreign  countries  to  enter 
and  use  it  under  toll  for  commercial  purposes.  We  can  do  this,  Mr. 
Chairman,  but  we  can  not,  should  not,  and,  if  the  sentiment  of  the 
natiou  is  truly  represented,  will  not  allow  a foreign  power  to  say 
that  we  may  construct  it  providing  we  "do  not  assume  to  ourselves 
any  rights  or  advantages  in  regard  to  commerce  or  navigation 
through  the  said  canal  which  shall  not  be  offered  on  the  same  terms 
to  the  subjects  of  Great  Britain.”  The  question  is  not  what  Great 
Britain  will  permit  us  to  do  in  this  regard,  but  what  we  shall  per- 
mit her  to  do.  We  are  the  dictators. 

Just  a word  more,  Mr.  Chairman,  and  then  I am  done.  That 
the  people  of  my  district  at  least  may  know  of  Administration  blun- 
ders, I quote  a portion  of  the  Hay-Pauncefote  treaty: 

The  high  contracting  parties,  desiriDg  to  preserve  and  maintain  the  "gen- 
eral principle"’  of  neutralization  established  in  Article  X'  1 1 1 of  the  Clayton- 
Bubver  Convention,  adopt  as  the  basis  of  such  neutralization,  the  following 
rules,  substantially  as  embodied  in  the  convention  between  Great  Britain  and 
certain  other  powers,  signed  at  Constantinople,  October  29,  1SSS,  for  the  free 
navigation  of  the  Suez  Maritime  CanaJ,  that  is  to  say; 


ii 


1.  Tbe  canal  shall  be  free  and  open,  in  time  of  war  as  in  time  of  peace, 
to  the  vessels  of  commerce  and  of  war  of  all  nations,  on  terms  of  entire  equal- 
ity, so  that  there  shall  be  no  discrimination  against  any  nation  or  its  citizens 
or  subjects  in  respect  of  the  conditions  or  charges  of  traffic,  or  otherwise. 

2.  The  c-anal  shall  never  be  blockaded,  nor  shall  any  right  of  war  be  ex- 
ercised nor  any  act  of  hostility  be  committed  within  it. 

3.  Vessels  of  war  of  a belligerent  shall  not  revictual  nor  take  any  stores 
in  the  canal  except  so  far  as  may  be  strictly  necessary;  and  the  transit  of 
suclr  vessels  through  the  canal  shall  be  effected  with  the  least  possible  delay, 
in  accordance  witii  the  regulations  in  force,  and  with  only  such  intermission 
as  may  result  from  the  necessities  of  the  service. 

Prizes  shall  be  in  all  respects  subject  to  the  same  rules  as  vessels  of  war 
of  the  belligerents. 

4.  No  belligerents  shall  embark  or  disembark  troops,  munitions  of  war 
or  warlike  materials  in  the  canal  except  in  case  of  accidental  hindrance  of  the 
transit,  and  In  such  case  the  transit  shall  be  resumed  with  all  possible  dis- 
patch. 

5.  The  provisions  of  (his  article  shall  apply  to  waters  adjacent  to  the 
canal,  within  three  marine  miles  of  either  end.  Vessels  of  war  of  a belligerent 
shall  not  remain  in  such  wafers  longer  than  twenty-four  hours  at  any  oue 
time,  except  in  case  of  distress,  and  in  such  case  shall  depart  as  soon  as  pos- 
sible: but  a vessel  of  war  of  one  belligerent  shall  net  depart  within  twenty- 
four  hours  from  the  departure  of  a.  vessel  of  war  of  the  other  belligerent. 

0.  'The  plant,  establishments,  buildings,  and  all  works  necessary  to  (lie 
construction,  maintenance,  and  operation  of  die  canal  shall  be  deemed  to  be 
part  thereof,  for  the  purposes  of  this  convention,  and  In  time  of  war  as  in 
time  of  peace  shall  enjoy  complete  immimi-y  from  attack  or  injury  by  bel- 
ligerents and  from  acts  calculated  to  Impair  their  usefulness  as  part  of  the 
canal. 

7.  No  fortifications  shall  be  erected  commanding  the  canal  or  the  wa- 
ters adjacent.  The  United  States,  however,  shall  be  at  liberty  to  maintain 
such  military  police  along  the  canal  as  may  be  necessary  to  protect  it  against 
lawlessness  and  disorder. 

Mr.  Chairman,  there  is  magnanimity  personified.  A revival  of 
the  Clayton-Buhver  treaty,  and  for  what?  I charge  no  secret  alli- 
ance. but  there  is  circumstantial  evidence  of  a toadyism  to  Great 
Britain  on  the  part  of  the  present  Administration  totally  out  of  ac- 
cord with  our  independent  democratic  institutions.  Every  nation 
has  a mission.  Our  mission.  Mr.  Chairman,  has  ever  been  to  defend 
and  protect  the  oppressed.  Our  mission  is  and  ever  has  been  the 
mission  of  independence,  and  i believe  we  can  never  ally  ourselves 
with  a nation  or  a people  whose  chief  aim  is  oppression.  For  this 
evidence  of  alliance  with  that  unmotherly  mqsCier  country,  look  to 
the  South  African  republics  now  struggling  for  their  very  existence. 
The  people  of  this  country  are  not  unmindful  of  the  failure  of  their 
official  representatives  to  declare  for  them  that  sympathy  which  it 
is  our  boasted  mission  to  feel,  and  when  necessary  to  demonstrate 
to  the  world. 

The  full  truth  of  the  matter  is  that  the  country  is  to-day  ask- 
ing itself  for  some  clean-cut  explanation  of  the  Administration's 
apparent  alliance  with  Great  Britain  in  this  war  of  devastation  and 
spoliation  upon  the  South  African  republics. 

It  is  well  to  bear  in  mind  that  this  country's  is  an  impulsive, 
brave  and  daring  people.  They  burn  incense  to  valor,  humanity, 


12 


and  justice,  but  they  condemn  in  unequivocal  language,  unfairness, 
bad  faith,  and  cruelty.  They  see  in  the  Hay-Pauneefote  treaty  a 
chasm  filled  with  shameful  possibilities.  They  are  watching  the 
conduct  of  their  official  representatives  in  what  they  begin  to  sus- 
pect of  being  a dangerous  and  abominable  tendency. 

Let  us  have  the  canal,  Mr.  Chairman,  by  all  means,  but  burn 
the  Hay-Pauncefote  treaty  and  consign  its  ashes  to  a foreign  port. 


Trusts. 


' SPEECH 

OF 

HON.  WILLIAM  H.  RYAN, 

OF  NEW  YORK, 

In  the  House  of  Representative, 

Thursday,  May  31,  1900. 

The  House  having  under  consideration  the  joint  resolution  (H.  J.  Res.  138) 
proposing  an  amendment  lo  the  Constitution  of  the  United  Slates — ■ 

Mr.  RYAN  of  New  York  said: 

-•  Mr.  Speaker:  To  my  mind  there  is  no  matter  of  greater  im- 

portance to  the  welfare  of  our  country  than  the  question  of  trusts, 
brcTught  to  our  immediate  consideration  by  this  joint  resolution.  I 
wish  to  have  it  known  as  far  as  my  remarks  may  travel  that  the 
time  spent  in  consideration  of  this  measure  is  so  many  wasted  mo- 
ments and  that  there  is  no  intention  of  passing  it  into  law.  I be- 
lieve its  foundation  has  been  laid  in  insincerity.  Had  the  Republi- 
can members  of  this  House  a determined  purpose  to  put  a stop  to 
the  crushing  influence  of  the  trusts  they  would  not  have  waited  un- 
til the  session  was  drawing  to  a close.  While  at  times,  and  at  this 
particular  time,  we  may  question  the  sincerity  of  the  Republican 
members  of  this  House,  we  can  not  question  their  ability.  If  you 
were  earnest  in  this  matter  and  had  a desire  to  regulate  the  trusts 
you  could  have  reported  a bill  early  in  the  session  and  put  it  through 
just  as  you  put  the  financial  bill  through.  You  had  no  intention  of 
passing  the  Nicaraguan  Canal  bill’ through  both  Houses  of  Con- 
gress. You  had  no  intention  of  passing  the  bill  repealing  the  stamp 
tax.  and  you  have  less  practical  purpose  in  introducing  and  report- 
ing an  anti-trust  bill  at  this  time. 

The  Ways  and  Means  Committee  gave  extended  hearings  to 
the  great  interests  of  the  country,  who  desire  and  are  justly  enti- 
tled to  a repeal  of  the  infamous  war-revenue  tax.  What  were  they 
held  for?  Did  the  committee  have  any  intention  of  presenting  to 
this  House  -a  measure  reducing  or  repealing  this  tax?  I say  no; 
not  a bit  of  it. 

Personally  I shall  vote  against  the  joint  resolution  and  for  the 
anti  trust  bill,  and  yet  I know  that  it  will  not  become  a law.  Why? 

- 4 


14 


Because  it  would  cut  the  trusts  away  from  governmental  privileges 
as  a reaper  cleans  the  held.  It  would  destroy  their  power  to  com 
trol  the  manufactured  products  of  this  country.  It  would  destroy 
their  power  to  control  the  raw  material.  It  would  destroy  their 
power  to  make  political  slaves  of  the  men, who  are  forced  through 
the  very  existence  of  these  trusts  to  depend  upon  them  for  the  es- 
sentials of  life. 

Without  the  Republican  party  the  trusts  would  fall,  and  with- 
out the  trusts  the  Republican  party  would  have  fallen  long  ago. 

The  growth  of  these  trusts  has  never-in  the  history  of  this  coun- 
try been  so  rapid  as  it  has  in  the  last  three  years  under  a Republi- 
can Administration.  They  have  sprung  up  like  mushrooms  in  the 
corner  of  the  pasture  and  we  begin  to  wonder  if  they  will  ever  stop. 
Unluckily  for  the  man  unendowed  with  a heritage  of  wealth,  and 
I say  it  with  sincere  regret,  the  trusts  have  been  given  the  power  to 
limit  the  reward. of  a faithful  and  persistent  exercise  of  brawn  and 
brain  until  they  have  “pressed  down  upon  the  brow  of  labor’’  that 
blistering  crown  of  despair.  Curb  the  trusts.  Curtail  their  influ- 
ence and  power  for  evil.  You  ask  me  how?  I say  pass  your  bill 
with  amendments  offered  by  the  minority,  including  that  amend- 
ment which  reads: 

Nothin"-  in  this  act  shall  be  so  construed  as  to  apply  to  trade  unions  or 
other  labor  organizations,  organized  for  (he  purpose  of  regulating  wages, 
hours  of  labor,  or  other  conditions  under  which  labor  is  to  be  performed. 

Pass  it  in  both  Houses  of  Congress.  Lay  it  upon  the  President's 
desk,  and  if  the  Administration  is  desirous  of  ending  this  aggran- 
dizement of  wealth  and  power,  the  President  will  sign  it. 

Will  you  do  it? 

Ko,  my  Republican  friends,  you  will  not.  The  country  knows 
that  you  will  not  do  it.  1 know  it  and  you  know  it.  It  is  useless  to 
say  more. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I will  ask  the  indulgence  of  the  House  while  I 
quote  here  the  remarks  of  James  R.  Keene,  a Wall  street  million- 
aire. He  says: 

The  people  of  this  country  must  arouse  themselves.  The  coming  election 
is  of  more  importance,  from  the  standpoint  of  a pure  and  true  Americanism, 
than  any  dial  has  transpired  since  die  second  election  of  Lincoln.  Money  is 
in  the  saddle:  if  is  riding  down  die  institutions  of  (his  country  with  a confi- 
dent insolence  that  tells  of  its  firm  belief  in  its  own  invincibility.  It  is  run- 
ning the  Government  to-day  in  its  every  branch  and  arm. 

If  money's  power  in  molding  public  affairs  goes  forward  for  four  years 
more  as  it  has  for  four  years  past,  the  name  of  Anieric-an  liberty  will  only  be 
worth  a recollection  as  a matter  of  history.  Money  is  pressing  the  people 
backward  step  by  step.  What  is  to  be  the  end?  If  it  goes  on. ‘there  are.  as 
matters  (rend,  but  two  solutions.  One  is  socialism,  and  (he  second  is  revo- 
lution. The  American  people  must  defend  themselves  from  money  just  as 
they  once  guarded  dicir  forest  frontiers  from  the  savage.  Unless  they  come 
solidly  shoulder  to  shoulder  lor  their  rights,  aud  come  at  once,  Bunker  Hill 
.will  have  been  a blunder,  Yorktown  a mistake. 

(Applause.) 

JL 


15 


I believe  that  Mr.  Keene  has  not  misrepresented  the  actual  sit- 
uation, and  that  something  must  be  done,  and  that  speedily,  to  shat- 
ter the  control  of  monopoly;  to  lighten  the  burden,  to  soften  the 
yoke,  and  restore  the  confidence  of  people  in  the  equality  and  integ- 
rity of  legislation,  or  disastrous  consequences  may  be  foreseen. 

While  on  this  question  of  deception  of  the  people,  a word  for 
the  stamp  tax.  The  Republican  party  has  no  more  intention  of  reg- 
ulating or  curtailing  the  power  of  the  trusts  than  they  have  of  re- 
deeming the  pledges  they  made  to  the  people  of  the  country  when 
war  with  Spain  was  declared.  They  gave  their  promise  to  the  coun- 
try that  when  that  war  had  ceased  this  stamp  tax  would  be  repeal- 
ed". The  people  took  them  at  their  word.  The  druggists,  the  insur- 
ance interests,  the  large  and  small  manufacturer  and  retailer  all _ 
willingly  contributed  their  share.  With  a patriotic  zeal  the  brew- 
ers of  the  United  States  came  to  the  front  with  an  additional  war 
tax  of  $35,000,000.  Have  they  no  rights  that  should  be  considered 
now? 

Delegation  after  delegation  from  each  of  these  interests  have 
appeared  before  the  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means  but  to  appeal 
against  a predetermination.  The  injustice  of  the  allotment  of  this 
tax  was  explained  to  the  committee,  and  I here  quote  what  Mr, 
Charles  H.  Clark  of  Pennsylvania,  who  visited  the  committee  with 

his  fellow-druggists,  said: 

v-  ° 

It  means,  simply  stated,  if  I may  be  permitted  to  use  the  expression  in 
Its  naked  deformity,  you  come  up  among  the  everlasting  hills  of  where  we 
have  our  factory  in  Pennsylvania  and  take  $7,000  out  of  my  pocket,  which 
I want,  and  which  you  have  no  use  for  whatever,  and  you  send  it  up  to  the 
Treasury  Department  and  then  the  Treasury  Department  sends  it  over  to  a 
bank  in  New  York  and  that  bank  loans  it  out  at  interest  and  puts  the  money 
in  the  pockets  of  its  stockholders.  (Applause  by  bystanders.) 

The  whole  point  I want  to  make  for  myself  is  tltis:  When  there  is  a war 
we  are  willing  to  do  just  as  much  for  our  country  as  anybody  else,  and  we 
have  always  done  it.  We  furnished  about  600.000  pieces  of  material  for  use 
of  the  soldiers  in  Cuba,  and  we  have  evidence  which  we  can  produce  to  you 
showing  that  those  articles  preserved  the  lives  of  our  soldiers;  aud  on  a great 
many  of  the  articles  we  sold  at  about  half  price  to  the  Government,  on  ac- 
count of  the  competition,  we  were  compelled  to  place  revenue  stamps,  and  we 
did  not  cafe  anything  about  it;  It  was  something  that  we  did  with  pleasure. 
But  when  the  rime  of  peace  comes  and  there  is  no  exigency  of  war.  and  there 
is  no  other  exigency,  when  you  do  not  want  that  money.  I say  that,  while 
you  have  the  legal  and  constituted  right  to  do  it,  you  have  no  moral  right — 
allow  me  to  say  with  all  courtesy— you  have  no  moral  right  to  take  that 
money  out  of  my  pocket. 

Mr.  Clark,  in  response  to  a question,  said; 

If  there  is  an  oppressive  or  unjust  taxation  on  anybody,  It  ought  to  be 
taken  off.  That  is  a good  general  statement  to  make.  I have  had  the  honor 
of  speaking  on  the  platform  in  political  campaigns  with  one  of  the  members 
of  this  committee,  aud  I will  say  that  if  I were  to  go  out  on  the  stump  next 
fall,  and  on  the  Democratic  side  (and  I do  not  believe  I ever  would  do  that), 
I would  not  ask  anything  better  than  to  lie  able  to  prove  that  a Republican 
Congress  is  permitting  ?S0. 000.000  or  $90,000,000  to  be  taken  away  from  the 
people  to  be  sent  over  to  be  distributed  through  New  Y'ork  banks. 


16 


I personally  attended  the  hearing  given  to  the  brewery  interest 
of  the  country  before  the  Ways  and  Means  Committee.  I do  not 
differ  with  the  man  who  believes  there  is  merit  in  the  manufacture 
of  liquor,  nor  do  I differ  with  the  man  who  does  not,  but  when  a tax 
of  $1  per  barrel  additional  is  placed  upon  this  product  strictly  for 
war-revenue  purposes,  and  that  war  has  ended  and  the  tax  is  not 
then  taken  off,  J differ  materially  with  the  men  or  party  who  insist 
upon  the  retention  of  t he  tax.  The  emergency  is  over,  but  the 
emergency  tax  is  still  in  force.  The  surplus  in  the  Treasury  is  in- 
creasing, and  we  ask  what  is  to  become  of  this  money.  Is  it  to  go 
back  to  the  people,  or  is  it  to  go  to  those  favored  New  York  banks? 
I think  to  the  latter. 

The  brewers  paid,  according  to  the  reports  of  the  Commissioner 
of  Internal  Revenue,  for  the  fiscal  years  ISOS  and  1S09,  $108,159,979. 
One-lialf  of  this  amount  was  the  extra  war  tax.  The  total  increase 
in  internal  revenue  taxes  for  these  two  years  was  $126,748,587.  The 
brewers  alone  paid  over  40  per  cent  of  these  increased  taxes.  They 
can  not  continue  to  bear  these  burdens  and  continue  their  business. 
This  tax  could  be  taken  off  and  there  would  still  be  more  revenue 
than  is  needed  to  pay  the  expenses  of  the  Government.  An  act  of 
justice  can  be  done  in  removing  this  tax  and  at  the  same  time  re- 
duce the  surplus  of  which  the  people  complain. 

O 


1 


igggjH 


■ir;  i: 

rii 

BJSgfflg:- 
:: 


. 


